Virgin Atlantic Chooses Chevy for Going Green on the Ground

"Virgin’s President Sir Richard Branson announced yesterday that the airline will be using Chevrolet Equinox hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as its limousines of choice for passengers landing at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)."

Sir Branson,

Good news, but meaningless since it doesn't say from where the hydrogen will come.

The hard part isn't making a hydrogen-powered vehicle, but figuring out how to produce the hydrogen.

Unfortunately, there are no pools of unattached hydrogen atoms waiting to be tapped into. Even though hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, virtually all the hydrogen on earth is already chemically bound to other atoms -- mostly oxygen to make water.

Presently there are only two viable methods of making hydrogen:

1. Use electricity to crack water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen. As every fifth grader knows, that works; but as few fifth graders realize, it also takes far more energy in the form of electricity than one can ever hope to get back by burning the hydrogen.

2. Reform natural gas into hydrogen. But again it takes more energy to do that than one can get back burning the hydrogen, and it depends on a fossil fuel -- natural gas. If we have to use natural gas to make hydrogen, it would make more sense to directly use the natural gas as a fuel and avoid the thermodynamic losses of the reforming process.

Please don't tell me you've solved the problem of figuring out how to run a vehicle on hydrogen until you can also tell me how you will produce the hydrogen without running head-on into the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Respectfully,

Gary Dikkers

GM is proving they are a company true to their word and their green efforts are astounding.

To me this is more about a race with oil companies to keep oil prices from spiking over the next several months and years, yet a race that has green benefits, financial benefits, and competitive advantages.

It is just unimaginable how quick and far GM has come over the last two years from nearly nothing to hybrid buses and SUV's, mild hybrids, two mode hybrids, energy saving 6 speed transmissions, hydrogen vehicles, ethanol vehicles, diesel advances, and of course the awe inspiring and breakthrough design of the Volt.

GM's approach to drive train solutions is as diverse as its approach to brand selection, it just takes it to another level which other automakers cannot reach. That is exactly how GM's stays on top, and we can dispute that paradigm forever but we can't dispute the results.

But the thing I am most excited about or what is the biggest surprise and what I think is the true game changer is something small. That is the Saab 9X (or 9-1 as some call it). A true Mini chaser from GM. For me, this changes everything. When GM introduces a luxurious small/mini car, it's a first.

Let me put it this way, when I was growing up it was generally acknowledged after cars like the Chevette, that GM could not make small cars at all. Then Saturn was to answer that problem. Then the problem evolved to the luxury segment in which GM could not make (or would not make) luxurious small cars to compete with the likes of a whole host of small import cars. Actually, it was "the smaller the car the cheaper the car" philosophy that seemed to be Detroit's approach.

Now this Saab answers that problem, and hopefully it is just the beginning. Not only should GM make this Saab 9-1 but I hope the small or smaller car solution hits every GM brand. Not just because of cafe, or high oil prices but because that is the way it should be but also most importantly...small cars are cool and "in" again...or in like never before.

Now there is only one topic more pressing than drive train technologies, and that is brand building or we end up like the steel industry. Watch the Porsche/Volkswagen relationship closely. Two companies, a multitude of brands, but watch, this. As far as brands and saving money...

Brand dilution is not a solution to making a profitable institution. Rather great brands like Audi and Porsche make great companies. Separately they are both very profitable. Separate brands do not always equate to higher structural costs. Look at Ford/Lincoln/Mercury. A great company will never be with weak brands and that GM, is something that we still need to build on.

Think Apple with the explosively successful Apple stores, still they sell i-pods everywhere. Nike wants to be the world's #1 brand. They sell sneakers in their stores as well as other high end retailers.

The bottom line is, the retail experience is still fundamental to building your brands. Apple can maintain its high end cache by maintaining its own stores and selling its products in every discount retailer in the country but the brand would die if it is sold exclusively at discount stores.

In short.

Maintaining at least some individual single brand Buick, Hummer, Cadillac, Saab, or even GMC stores is fundamental to making and keeping strong brands.

I believe it was, in fact, the individual brand dealers that saved Buick.

Richard Branson drank the Hydrogen B.S. cool aid.

Once you step back and look at the entire energy cycle, the ONLY thing "green" about H2 is MONEY! The LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil…

GREED KILLS.

Gary,
There's a multitude of methods that Hydrogen can be extracted, many of which are still under development. Such examples include using algae, solar, hydro, and wind power. I think it unwise to shoot down a new method of fueling vehicles when the technology to produce it is still under development.

What GM is doing is showcasing the product that would run on hydrogen first. This is the correct path to take in that it creates consumer awareness. Second comes the development of the infrastructure, which is created partially out of consumer demand which spurs industrial investment.

I look at it this way: If we could develop an industry larger than all the manufacturing capacity in three short years in WW2( The Manhattan project) and put a man on the moon in less than 10 years in the 60's, then we have the ability to find ways to power cars with hydrogen.

Look we just don't drive AMC/Jeep/Eagles anymore, and it won't be long before we will not be driving Lincoln/Mercurys. Nope no Chrysler/Plymoths are on the road now, all dead.

Is there anything wrong with my Cadillac/Chevy dealership down the street. Nope just fine-and nothing wrong with the nice Hummer/Buick/GMC/Pontiac dealership that will soon have its own exclusive Hummer store next door.

But there is nothing wrong with that beautiful new Saab dealership that opened up less than 2 years ago. Nothing wrong either with the 50 year old GMC dealership down the road with the authentic neon sign from back in the day that still flickers.

But it's all over when people start referring to their cars as AMC/Jeep/Eagles. Once they are completely yoked then they are completely choked.

We can sell Starbucks at Wal-Mart, nothing wrong with that, but once Wal-Mart is the only place we can get Starbucks, then eventually and very soon, it will lose its premium appeal.

Nike knows it uses the same rubber as everybody else. This is a brand, they will convince you to pay 10 times more for that rubber because of its name and logo on that shoe. There is no simple way to create great brands it takes consistency, service, quality, advertising, and a symbol in a working and dynamic relationship with the public and media. It is not a simple equation to perfect and every industry will be different but fundamental to brand building is the building which brands are housed. This is the "face" of the company to the public.

If they don't shop at the "face" that is the Nike store, then the "image" of that face will still be in their head no matter where they buy ther Nike sneakers.

And this is what I am trying to expalin here GM. We don't need 1000 Buick "faces", we just need one or two "model" Buick stores in a market that will create that "face" for the brand. Then the "image" of that brand will stick in the head of consumers no matter where they get their Buicks.

Can somebody explain this to GM, does anybody understand this, do we not understand this point her yet?

We can do a thousand vehicle projects and make all the engines and drive trains in the world, cut costs like never before, but if our brands suffer for lack of focus...

in the end we will have done nothing, but prolonged our demise.

In short...

Brands need walls.

Edvard said: "I think it unwise to shoot down a new method of fueling vehicles when the technology to produce it is still under development."

Edvard,

Producing unattached hydrogen atoms to use as fuel will ALWAYS take more energy than is possible to get back by burning the hydrogen.

You cite the Manhattan and Apollo projects as something to model the hydrogen effort after. Those aren't good models.

The Manhattan and Apollo projects were engineering challenges. All it took was giving them a high enough priority and throwing the money and resources at them to solve them. (Physicists knew how to make an atom bomb as early as 1939. The engineering challenge (and it was a huge one) was to collect enough U-236 and Pu-239 and assemble it into bombs.)

Separating hydrogen from the other elements such as oxygen and carbon to which it is tightly bound is not an engineering problem, it's a physics problem -- specifically the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No matter how much money and resources we throw at the problem, we will always have to expend more energy than we can hope to get back. There is no shortcut around the Second Law.

You said: "There's a multitude of methods that Hydrogen can be extracted, many of which are still under development. Such examples include using algae, solar, hydro, and wind power."

But none of those will get away from the fact it will always take more energy than the hydrogen can give back. Solar, hydro, and wind are only methods of generating the needed energy to break the tight chemical bonds holding hydrogen atoms to other elements..

With an unlimited source of clean, green energy, it might make sense to spend some of that energy cracking water into oxygen and hydrogen in order to use the hydrogen as a fuel. But we don't yet have that source of energy.

Perhaps the day will come when we will have an unlimited energy source from clean fusion reactors. When that day gets here, using some of that energy to produce hydrogen for a fuel will make sense. (Although many will ask, "Once we have an unlimited source of electrical energy, why not just run our vehicles on that electricity?")

You said: "What GM is doing is showcasing the product that would run on hydrogen first. This is the correct path to take in that it creates consumer awareness."

I disagree. The critical path to using hydrogen as a fuel is not making a vehicle to burn it. That part may be complex, but it is only an engineering problem.

The true critical path is overcoming the physics of procuring the hydrogen. Without solving that part, it matters little how clever GM's hydrogen cars might be.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

With regard to hydrogen, the important question in my mind is not whether the generation of hydrogen is efficient, but if it can be cost competitive to the consumer using renewable sources. For instance, if a PV system or windfarm is electrolyzing water, why should I care if the process is inefficient (i.e. taking more energy to electrolyze then you get back using the hydrogen)? As long as the retail cost of hydrogen is no higher than for gasoline, I am happy.

One of the reasons I like hydrogen is that it can be extracted from almost anything, including biofuels. So, even if hydrogen were to be commercialized, investments in biofuels would not be wasted, as hydrogen could be extracted from them as well.

In fact, extracting hydrogen from ethanol (derived from the Coskata process, perhaps?) might solve a transportation problem: the ethanol can more easily be delivered to the pumps than either gaseous or liquid hydrogen, and then the hydrogen can be extracted on site.

I wonder whether there is any commercial value to what is left after the hydrogen is extracted.

- Eric
Project Driveway Fuel Cell driver

Great, kinda stupid to. Couldn't GM have thought about things like this happening and have either done this with a Caddy or included the option of a Caddy? The Nox kinda sux. I would have much rather a Buick Enclave or a Cadillac Provoq(Where is that anyway :)). Oh well

Gary,
I grew up pretty close to where part of the Manhattan project was developed. I'm fairly familiar with what X-10, K-25, and y-12 plants were used for, which was to separate U-235 from U-238.

Your argument that scientists knew how to build a nuclear bomb as early as 1939 is no different than saying that today, scientists know how to produce hydrogen from non-petroleum sources in a financially and practically viable manner. In both instances, as you pointed out, it wasn't the concept but the act of processing that proved to be the mother of invention.

The same is true with the space program, and the same is also true for the yet to be discovered methods for producing hydrogen cheaply and with methods that are low impact and inexpensive.

Secondly, if GM was focusing on hydrogen fueled vehicles as their only means of alternative propulsion, that would be one thing. But as you already know, they're working on dozens of alternatives all at once and have been doing so for years now.

So in essence, your only argument remains that we shouldn't be accepting hydrogen because the means to produce it efficiently has yet to be determined. If that be the case, then I'm thankful that people like yourself were not in charge of the space program because just like now- the known means to complete those missions was unavailable and unknown at the start of that program, hence your sense of reasoning would have meant that we would've never left the ground.

It pays to be outwardly optimistic.

Edvard,

- We have no economical way to make hydrogen.
- We have no economical way to distribute hydrogen.
- We have no vehicles that economically use hydrogen.

So, I ask, what's so compelling about hydrogen?

On the other hand,

- We have economical ways to make electricity.
- We have economical ways to distribute electricity.
- We have no vehicles that economically use electricity.

GM can invest its R&D wherever it likes (I suspect much automotive "R&D" is actually "PR" expense) but I'm thinking developing 1 out of 3 is way cheaper than developing 3 out of 3.

Edvard,

All I can do is repeat: There is no way to make an end run around the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I'm not saying hydrogen doesn't make a damn fine fuel, I'm only saying it will always take more energy to procure the hydrogen than we can get back burning it. That simple fact limits its potential as a wide-spread motor fuel.

In a program such as Apollo, we used liquid hydrogen as propellant for the Saturn rocket because it had the best specific thrust available. That was acceptable because we wanted to get to the Moon, and no one cared how much energy it took to make the hydrogen fuel for those Saturn rockets.

As far as the Manhattan Project goes, you need to learn to distinguish between engineering and science. Learning to separate U-235 from U-238, how to machine it, and then assemble it into a bomb was an engineering challenge.

Using hydrogen as a practical car fuel is not just an engineering problem for companies such as GM to solve -- it's a science problem because of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Best,

Gary Dikkers

Gary,
I think you're missing my point entirely which is to say that as of NOW, we do not have specific means to produce hydrogen efficiently, but that doesn't mean we should toss it by the wayside since those means have yet to be determined.

Let's say, for example, that in the future, a method for developing hydrogen fuel is becomes derived from a new advanced hydroelectric generator, or some other unforeseen source. Your only argument is that it takes more energy to process hydrogen than it generates. But what if the means to do so were economically cheap enough to take the financial costs of doing so out of the equation? Again- these are ALL "what ifs". But history is full of "what if's", and the people and organizations who take on those types of questions and problems are the kinds of people who make history... not those who sit on their rears and deride technology based on currently known methods. Look at any periodic table today. Quite a few of those elements were completely unknown less than 100 years ago. Science is a continuously evolving body of work that is based heavily in theory. So in other words, neither one of us is absolutely correct in either of our assumptions.

Lastly, GM has been working on this program for well over ten years. I find it incredibly ironic that there are still massive amounts of people out there who chastise and deride GM for " not doing enough" to save the environment and so on. Yet when they actually go out on a limb and develop technology that is light years ahead of current consumer expectations, all they get is an earful of " You can't do that because it will NEVER work." The irony is almost hysterical.

edvard

Waste is waste. You seem to think that if the electrons are "free" than efficiency doesn't matter.

If would be wasteful and foolish to build 30% MORE solar or wind farms just to make up for H2 production inefficiency?

Should we invest well over $1 Trillion for an all new Hydrogen infrastructure when the existing electric grid NEEDS day/night balancing to maximize it’s efficiency and electric cars would be PERFECT for this.

You don’t go to the all you can eat buffet and load up then throw away plate after plate of food just because it's "free". Please take what you need and leave the rest for someone else.

What REALLY counts is being a good steward of ALL of our resources and EFFICIENCY is the only way to honestly accomplish this.

BATTERY electric cars are the ONLY way for us to have transportation powered by DISTRIBUTED (non-centralized) renewable solar power. Demand = competition, innovation and economy of scale which lowers prices in a FREE market.

The battery electric car is the semi-conductor of the 21st century.

anything that produces power also produces heat which adds to "global warming" so there is really no way to stop this unless everyone walks to where they have to go BUT not fast enough to sweat so they produce more "global warming". oil is here to stay in the foreseeable future and these other means of power are just engineering exercises.

Look- anyway you cut it, a certain amount of 'sin' has to be committed in order to produce whatever energy source deemed superior. Batteries require electrical input, coming from plants which can run on solar, nuclear, hydro, wind, but the most viable,realistic, inexpensive, and readily available being coal which has all sorts of negative connotations . Nuclear... well we don't even have to go there. Even hydro and wind creates damage or environmental/geological damage of some sort.

If your model of a free market were true, then battery powered cars would have been the standard starting back at the turn of the twentieth century when Baker electric cars roamed the streets, complete with banks of rechargeable batteries. Perhaps they will in the future, but in the meantime I think companies like GM, Ford, Toyota, and all the rest are choosing the right path by electing to research the viability of multiple power systems. If they or we knew the exact means to replace the current standard... then there would be a universal solution.

"It pays to be outwardly optimistic."

Edvard,

No matter how optimistic you are, you aren't going to make an end run around the Laws of Thermodynamics. (They are called "Laws" for a reason.)

The energy it would take to free hydrogen atoms so we can then burn them as a mere motor fuel could be spent far more productively doing other things.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Have a good weekend,

Gary

Charlie H said:

- We have no economical way to make hydrogen.
- We have no economical way to distribute hydrogen.
- We have no vehicles that economically use hydrogen.

So, I ask, what's so compelling about hydrogen?

On the other hand,

- We have economical ways to make electricity.
- We have economical ways to distribute electricity.
- We have no vehicles that economically use electricity.

Well said Charlie. Succinct and to the point.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

"Sorry, but that's just the way it is."

Gary,
I suppose we would be at a point in this conversation where we agree to disagree, which is totally fine in any conversation.

I'll just leave the topic open at both ends and mention a few historical insites.

In the 1950's,one of the largest corporations on earth was RCA. David Sarnoff was the then President. His projections were that by the 1990's, every home in America would be powered by small nuclear power plants in the garage.

Also of that same time period, the RAND corporation predicted that computers for the home would be practical by 2004, but the price and size of the computer would be far to great for the average homeowner. Part of the reasoning was that the technology needed to make home computing feasible was not yet invented.

I mention these two examples of 'predictions' for the future because they mirror what's going on with the whole future propulsion argument, which is that just as the "computer of the future", the technology, means, know-how, economics, and implementation are not yet developed.More importantly, more often than not, the means and actual execution of those ideas often have completely different and unexpected outcomes. Hence my argument remains the same in that it is somewhat foolish to disregard new technology that is not even fully developed yet but even in the early stages offers the possibility of completely pollution-free propulsion and more importantly- the possibility of freeing ourselves from depending on other countries for our fuel needs.

I'm not disputing your raw scientific data but I am disagreeing with you that we shouldn't be spending energy and efforts on developing the technology further.

since coal produces global warming,oil is expensive,windmills kill birds,atomic power is a no no and hydro and solar is only available in some parts of the country where is all this electric going to come from to charge these batteries??? we have blackouts now without any extra loads on the power grids

Edvard said: I suppose we would be at a point in this conversation where we agree to disagree..."

Edvard,

We actually don't disagree that much. There is no question that hydrogen makes a fine fuel -- for both cars and rockets.

Where we disagree is about the importance of knowing where that hydrogen will come from -- whether it will ever be practical. And most importantly, whether it can be done without consuming far more energy than it can deliver. (The Laws of Thermodynamics say that it can't, and the conventional wisdom says, "Never bet against the Laws of Thermodynamics.")

Companies such as GM and BMW who are touting their hydrogen-powered vehicles are only peddling public-relations moonshine if they ignore the far more critical issue of where the hydrogen will come from.

I'm not saying hydrogen-fueled vehicles wouldn't be good, only that getting the hydrogen is the long pole in the tent.

Best,

Gary Dikkers